In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation

Page 520

456 F.Supp.2d 520

In re WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER SITE LITIGATION

No. 21 MC 100(AKH).

No. 03 Civ. 00007 et al. (AKH).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

October 17, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Donna R. Silverglad, Sacks & Sacks, Esqs., New York, NY, Plaintiffs.

Matthew J. Maiorona, Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendant.

OPINION DENYING AND GRANTING MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HELLERSTEIN, District Judge.

It took ten months to remove the debris that resulted when the terrorists crashed their hijacked airplanes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Thousands of workers converged on the site, toiling day and night, seven days a week until they completed their jobs. They risked their lives from shifting debris, fires, smoke, and acrid and polluted air to complete their work in record time, in an extraordinary effort to close the gaping hole caused by the terrorists to the landscape and psyche of New York and the nation.

I consider in this Opinion the claims of approximately 3,000 of these workers, claiming permanent injury to their respiratory systems and their health and vitality, and a shortening of their lives. They claim that the City and its contractors, and other Defendants, were negligent in monitoring the air and assuring appropriate safety in the workplace, particularly in not providing adequate respiratory equipment, and assuring proper use thereof.

Defendants now move to dismiss these claims, contending that they are immune from suit pursuant to state and federal laws providing immunity for actions undertaken in response to a disaster created by an enemy attack on the state and nation. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are not immune, particularly in light of Congress' clear contemplation, in the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001, that the City was exposed to numerous claims resulting from or relating to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, and granting to the City a cap to limit its potential liability stemming from such claims. Furthermore, Plaintiffs argue, Congress again recognized the City's exposure to suits such as those at bar by granting a one billion dollar fund to the City to pay for the City's losses, liabilities and expenses, enabling the City to create a captive insurance fund to insure its exposure.

I discuss the various motions of the City and other Defendants in this Opinion and hold that the Defendants are benefited by limited immunity, limited according to time and activity, and that the issues are fact-intensive and cannot be decided on motion at this juncture. My conclusion also expresses some suggestions for the future progression of these cases, to enable the parties to begin discussions of settlements and to prepare for trial.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.   INTRODUCTION ..............................................................  525
II.  THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................  526
     A. The Declarations of Emergency: The Immediate Government Response ........ 527
     B. The City Asserts Control and the Recovery Operation Commences ........... 528
     C. The Development of Health and Safety Standards at the Site .............. 530
     D. The Implementation and Enforcement of Health and Safety Standards ......  532
     E. The Role of Federal Agencies ...........................................  533
        1. The Activation of Federal Assistance ................................  533
        2. The Role of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration .......  534
        3. The Role of the Environmental Protection Agency .....................  535
        4. The Role of the Army Corps of Engineers .............................  536
     F. The Rescue and Recovery Effort Comes to a close ........................  537
     G. The Continuing Vitality of Applicable Safety Standards and Labor Laws.... 537
III. THE PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND THE PENDING MOTIONS .......................... 538
     A. The Procedural Background ............................................... 538
     B. The Pending Motions ..................................................... 540
IV.  THE PREEMPTIVE EFFECT OF THE ATSSSA ........................................ 542
     A. The Doctrine of Preemption .............................................. 543
     B. The Alleged Preemptive Effect of the ATSSSA and the Captive
         Insurance Fund ........................................................  544
     C. Discussion .............................................................  545
V.   THE MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS-STATE IMMUNITY ................... 546
     A. The Standard of Review .................................................. 547
     B. The New York State Defense Emergency Act ................................ 547
        1. The Immunity Provision of the SDEA ................................... 547
        2. The Continued Vitality of the SDEA ................................... 548
        3. Qualifying Laws under the SDEA ....................................... 549
        4. Civil Defense Activities and the Requirement of Good Faith ........... 550
           a. Civil Defense Activities .......................................... 550
           b. The Requirement of Good Faith ..................................... 552
           c. Discussion ........................................................ 553
     C. The Argument of Immunity Under the New York Disaster Act ................ 556
        1. The Limited Scope of the Disaster Act's Application .................. 556
        2. The Extension of Disaster Act Immunity to Non-Government
            Actors .............................................................. 558
     D. New York State Common Law Immunity ...................................... 558
VI.  THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT-FEDERAL IMMUNITY .........................  559
     A. Standard of Review .....................................................  559
     B. Derivative Federal Immunity ............................................  560
        1. The Relevant Case Law ...............................................  560
        2. Application to the Rescue and Recovery Efforts at Ground Zero .......  563
     C. Stafford Act Immunity ..................................................  566
     D. Other Bases for Federal Immunity .......................................  567
VII. THE MOTIONS BY THE LESSEES ................................................  567

     A. The Work Performed by the Lessee Defendants ............................  568
        1. The Work Performed by Con Edison ....................................  568
        2. The Work Performed by the Silverstein Defendants ....................  569
     B. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Submissions ...................................  570
     C. Alleged Grounds of Liability ...........................................  571
        1. Dismissal of Claims Pursuant to New York Labor Law for Failure
            to Show the Necessary Degree of Ownership or Control ...............  571
        2. Dismissal of Claims Sounding in Negligence in the Absence of Any
            Duty Owed ..........................................................  574
        3. Dismissal of all Remaining Claims for Failure to Show any
            Underlying Claim .................................................... 575
VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................ 575

I. INTRODUCTION

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 inflicted a gaping wound on the structure and spirit of New York City. But it did not defeat the City, nor its population. As the nation began to absorb the enormity of the devastation and loss of lives that resulted from the terrorist attacks, an army of responderi—instrumentalities of federal, state and city governments, private contractors, and thousands of firemen, policemen, paramedics, and construction workers—descended on the site of the devastation in New York City, initially to participate in the desperate search for survivors and, after all hope of life had faded, to assist in the recovery of remains and the clearing of debris. Working night and day, seven days a week, overcoming intense heat, persistent fires, and noxious fumes, the work was done and the site was cleared, in just under ten months—record time.

The extraordinary efforts of the men and women who worked on the site took a toll. A few have died, with at least one of their deaths having been attributed to the poisons they breathed while looking for survivors and clearing the debris. Anthony DePalma, Debate Revives as 9/11 Dust is Called Fatal, N.Y. Times, April 14, 2006, at B2. Many others allege serious respiratory injuries, threatening to shorten their lives and afflict their remaining years. Anthony DePalma, Illness Persisting in 9/11 Workers, Big Study Finds, N.Y. Times, Sept. 5, 2006, at A6. A study released by doctors at Mount Sinai Medical Center shows that approximately 70 percent of the 10,000 workers who were tested reported that they suffer from new or substantially increased respiratory problems since September 11. Id. In all, more than 3,000 of these men and women have filed suit in this Court, and even more suits are likely as respiratory injuries continue to manifest themselves. Under procedures outlined in the New York General Municipal Law section 50-e, allowing for leave to serve notice of claims upon the City of New York outside of the prescribed 90-day period, hundreds of additional persons have gained leave by the New York Supreme Court also to file suits, adding to the lawsuits consolidated before me. Abdelrehim v. City of New York, 2006 WL 2193044 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2006).

The main Defendant in...